Elliotte Patrick Coleman v. District of Columbia
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 792
D.C.2013Background
- Coleman applied in 2008 for several D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) jobs and was not hired for any position.
- He alleged DCRA unlawfully preselected candidates and chose less-qualified individuals, relying on the CMPA, D.C. regulations, and the D.C. Personnel Manual.
- Coleman exhausted available administrative grievance procedures and filed an appeal with the Office of Employee Appeals (OEA); OEA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Coleman was an applicant, not an employee.
- Coleman sued in Superior Court; the court dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, interpreting prior precedent to require an OEA jurisdictional determination first.
- On appeal, the District conceded Coleman exhausted available remedies but argued the Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act (CMPA) foreclosed Coleman’s ability to pursue his claim in Superior Court.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, holding that the CMPA, when read as a whole and in light of precedent, rebuts the presumption of judicial review for Coleman’s type of applicant challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coleman had to appeal to OEA before suing | Coleman argued he exhausted available remedies and was not required to obtain an OEA jurisdictional ruling | District initially argued failure to exhaust; on appeal conceded exhaustion of available remedies | Court assumed Coleman had exhausted remedies and decided case on CMPA preclusion grounds |
| Whether the CMPA forecloses Superior Court review of an applicant’s challenge to hiring decisions under the CMPA/regulations | Coleman contended he could sue in Superior Court to enforce statutory/regulatory requirements and D.C. Personnel Manual | District argued CMPA’s comprehensive scheme rebuts presumption of judicial review and precludes Coleman’s suit | Held: CMPA forecloses Coleman’s suit; disappointed applicants cannot bring this claim in Superior Court |
| Whether CMPA’s grievance and OEA scheme gives adequate alternative remedies | Coleman maintained grievance process existed and he used it; sought judicial relief when administrative remedies failed | District argued CMPA’s grievance/OEA framework was the exclusive channel and denial of judicial review for applicants was consistent with CMPA’s structure | Held: CMPA’s structure and purposes indicate legislative intent to limit judicial review for applicant CMPA claims |
| Whether foreclosing such suits violates Home Rule Act or leaves applicants without remedy | Coleman implied courts should review agency adherence to law; raised no successful Home Rule challenge | District argued foreclosure is within Council’s legislative authority and consistent with precedent | Held: Foreclosure does not violate the Home Rule Act; CMPA’s comprehensive scheme permits limiting judicial causes of action |
Key Cases Cited
- Block v. Community Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340 (statutory scheme can rebut presumption of judicial review)
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (comprehensive personnel scheme can implicitly preclude judicial review)
- District of Columbia v. Thompson, 593 A.2d 621 (D.C. 1991) (interpreting CMPA as channeling employment disputes through administrative system)
- District of Columbia v. American Fed'n of Gov't Emps., Local 1403, 19 A.3d 764 (D.C. 2011) (CMPA forecloses certain Superior Court actions by employees)
- District of Columbia v. Sierra Club, 670 A.2d 354 (D.C. 1996) (general rule that aggrieved parties may seek equitable relief, subject to statutory exceptions)